Understanding Alternative Education: A Mixed Methods Examination of Student Experiences This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of school administration and K-12 education. Susan Glassett Farrelly California State University, Fullerton Erika Daniels California State University San Marcos Alternative education plays a critical role in the opportunity gap that persists in the US public education system. However, there has been little research on alternative schools. Scaffolded by a theoretical framework constructed from critical theory, self-determination theory (SDT) and student voice, this research examined how well students in alternative schools were being served. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to document, describe, and analyze the student experience at alternative school. The first phase used self-determination theory and extant data to describe students attending an alternative school. Distinct groups of students were established using cluster analysis. These groups provide a vehicle for maximal variation sampling of participants in the second phase, a narrative inquiry. This study found that SDT predicts which students are on track to meet their educational goals, and that these students experience personalized education and develop strong student-teacher relationships. The student stories establish the importance of alternative schools but also reveal the need to change the ways our educational system employs alternative programs. This study suggests a path that can ultimately lead to effective alternative education. NCPEA Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, Vol. 1, No. 1 – March 2014 ISSN: 1532-0723 © 2014 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration This manuscript may not be used commercially or edited. When quoting portions of this text, attribution to the author/s is required. 106 Introduction Disparities in school performance among various groups of students were first dubbed the “achievement gap” in 1963 (Walker, 1963). The achievement gap refers not just to a gap in standardized test scores, but graduation rates, discipline, data - an “opportunity gap” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). Alternative schools (the terms alternative school and alternative program, used interchangeably throughout the literature reviewed, are used interchangeably in this paper) play a pivotal role in all. Serving students labeled “at-risk” of educational failure, alternative programs operate “with a relatively high degree of autonomy” (Lehr & Lange, 2003, p. 60), ignored and exempt from accountability. The number of alternative schools and students is growing, the result of increases in suspensions and expulsions, pushing students out of their traditional schools and into alternative schools (Lehr, Tan, & Ysseldyke, 2009). There is no standard definition of alternative education (Aron, 2006). Most researchers and the US Department of Education agree that alternative education serves students labeled “at-risk” of educational failure (Lehr et al., 2009). These students may be disruptive, truant, involved with the juvenile justice system, failing academically, pregnant, or already parents. (Carver & Lewis, 2010). They are disproportionately students of African American, Latino, or Native American descent, have low socioeconomic status (SES), and often have special needs (Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005; Fairbrother, 2008; Loutzenheiser, 2002; Smith, 2003). Many alternative schools warehouse problem students and ineffective teachers (Kelly 1993; Kim & Taylor, 2008; Lehr & Lang, 2003; Warren, 2007). Alternative schools are often created for the benefit of the traditional schools, which use alternative programs as holding pens for their disruptive and underperforming students (Brown, 2007; Kim & Taylor, 2008; Lehr et al., 2009; McNulty & Roseboro, 2009; Muñoz, 2004; Warren, 2007). Through the overuse of suspensions and expulsions, disadvantaged youth are marginalized. Zero-tolerance policies and an increased focus on accountability in traditional schools lend rationale to exclusionary discipline policies (Brown, 2007; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010; Lehr et al., 2009; McNulty & Roseboro, 2009). Poor students, students of color, and those with disabilities are disproportionately disciplined and disenfranchised (APA, 2008; Martinez, 2009; Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Most of these students drop out or end up in alternative schools (Advancement Project, 2010; Arcia, 2006). Alternative schools can be supportive places. (de la Ossa, 2005; Poyrazli et al., 2008; Quinn, Poinier, Faller, Gable, & Tonelson, 2006; Saunders & Saunders, 2001). However, even in these programs, “at-risk” students are viewed as deficient, and given an easier route to graduation, making success in post secondary education or careers less likely (Atkins, Bullis, & Todis, 2005; Darling & Price, 2004; Fairbrother, 2008; Loutzenheiser, 2002; Washington, 2008). Previous studies have rightly emphasized the need to incorporate student voice into the research (Brown, 2007; Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005; de la Ossa, 2005; Loutzenheiser, 2002; McNulty & Roseboro, 2009), since little is known about how alternative schools meet student needs. Do alternative schools reengage students? How does learning, academic achievement, and personal development compare to the outcomes at traditional schools? Is alternative education really an alternative, or just a place to hide and hold disenfranchised students? Alternative program students are the best source for answers to these questions. This research sought to authorize the student perspective, by making meaning of their experiences. This 107 research captured how alternative schools affect the lived educational experiences of their students. In their own voice, students explain why alternative programs are important, and how they can be improved. It is hoped that these stories will compel more research and catalyze changes in policy, procedures, and instruction for alternative schools. Purpose of the Study All aspects of alternative education need research, especially concerning student outcomes (Atkins et al., 2005; Brown, 2007; Foley & Pang, 2006; Kelly, 1993; Kim & Taylor, 2008; Lehr & Lange, 2003; McNulty & Roseboro, 2009; Muñoz, 2004; Quinn et al., 2006; Warren, 2007). The purpose of this research was to examine student experiences in alternative schools to determine if their educational needs were being met and if opportunities for improvement existed. This study analyzed student experiences in an alternative school. The two-phased, explanatory, mixed methods study gathered and analyzed quantitative data from a sample of the students, and then examined the reasons behind those results by interviewing a subset of the participants. The first phase made use of student surveys and records to identify and purposefully select participants for the second phase. The second qualitative phase, a narrative inquiry into student educational experiences, was emphasized because this study wanted to understand the lived experiences of students in alternative schools The overarching questions that guided this study were: Do alternative schools provide a real alternative for the students who attend them, and how can alternative schools better serve their students? The specific questions this research explored in order to answer the larger questions were: 1) Who attends alternative school? 2) What is the lived student educational experience before, during, and after attending alternative school? Understanding who attends alternative schools, how they came to be enrolled, and their experiences helped answer the question of whether or not students are provided an equitable educational alternative. Listening to the perspective of students provided essential input to improving alternative education practice. Theoretical Framework Because the existing research is ambiguous and/or inconclusive, it is important to situate an understanding of this type of education within a theoretical framework. Three theories guided the development of this study. Critical Theory Examining alternative schools to determine if they provide a real alternative necessitated an investigation focused on collecting and analyzing data with an interpretive framework that accepts complexity, conceives knowledge as being socially constructed, and plays particular attention to the role power plays. Is it a real alternative that provides students with a fair and 108 equitable education, as opposed to a reasonable solution when viewed through the lens of a dominant White culture? This research embraced critical theory’s goals of critique and transformation, restitution, and emancipation (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). The literature suggests using a critical theory or a social justice lens to highlight student experiences in alternative education (Brown, 2007; Loutzenheiser, 2002; Muñoz, 2004). Student Voice Student voice was this study’s raison d’être. Students are capable of expressing their views about their learning and school experience (Groves, 2010; Kruse, 2000; Storz, 2008). The voices of students are essential to successful school reform efforts (Fielding, 2001; Fullan, 2007; Mitra & Gross, 2009). Student perspectives are important to understanding how attending alternative school affects student academic, social and emotional wellbeing (Brown, 2007; de la Ossa, 2005). The voices of students